Food for thought, ZR4 + STI-r Remote

[djrams80]

The biggest problem that I have with the video in question:
Escort 9500i True Lock being tested by the Guys of Lidar.
is that I personally feel that this scenario would smoke any RD user with any RD most of the time. For a 9500i user to have locked out this signal as a false they should:

1. Know this area well
2. Drive through the area frequently
3. Have seen the false alert many times
4. Have a pretty good idea at approximately where along the route that the false alert happens

With my SRX, when all of the above criteria are met, I personally would already have my finger on the mute button ready for the alert. I can't be the only one, can I? I would see the alert frequency(I use spec display almost exclusively), recognize it as the usual false, and mute it. Then I would get smoked by the radar signal up just up ahead as my SRX would stay muted for the different signal, which closely resembles the signal already muted. I know this is a hypothetical scenario, but does it not make sense? I doubt that even the V1 with 2 seperate detectors would recognize this as 2 seperate signals.

[jimbonzzz]

These are the things that need to take place to have a problem with TrueLock:

1) Local radar is running in X or K
2) You lock out a location with X or K
3) the location you lock out with X or K happens to be the same 30MHz block the local LEO's are running
4) A LEO is running radar in that same locked out area.
5) His signal is of about the same strength of the false so it doesn’t alert out side the locked out area.
6) and lastly you are speeding in that "High Risk" area.

That’s more variables than what it takes to get a ticket with a RD that has no TrueLock.

Exactly. So why do you have a problem with our videos, when a smart user wouldn't have a problem regardless if the 9500i reported police radar at a previously locked out location or not?

I think I know: You are in fact a DEALER of these units, and are SELLING them out of your signature on another forum!

Anyone who doubts this can click here to see for themselves:


And let's be honest here: you're not just selling them for the fun of it! You have a financial interest in making people like the 9500i: so they'll buy one from you! You don't like anything that might make people dislike the 9500i, or else it will hurt you bottom line!

So the big question is: do you push these so hard on this forum because you like them, because you want people to buy them? And how are forum users supposed to know the difference?

There's absolutely NO way to tell one way or the other, because you're a DEALER, not simply a detector enthusiast!

[CJR238]

These are the things that need to take place to have a problem with TrueLock:

1) Local radar is running in X or K
2) You lock out a location with X or K
3) the location you lock out with X or K happens to be the same 30MHz block the local LEO's are running
4) A LEO is running radar in that same locked out area.
5) His signal is of about the same strength of the false so it doesn’t alert out side the locked out area.
6) and lastly you are speeding in that "High Risk" area.

That’s more variables than what it takes to get a ticket with a RD that has no TrueLock.

Exactly. So why do you have a problem with our videos, when a smart user wouldn't have a problem regardless if the 9500i reported police radar at a previously locked out location or not?

I think I know: You are in fact a DEALER of these units, and are SELLING them out of your signature on another forum!

Anyone who doubts this can click here to see for themselves:


And let's be honest here: you're not just selling them for the fun of it! You have a financial interest in making people like the 9500i: so they'll buy one from you! You don't like anything that might make people dislike the 9500i, or else it will hurt you bottom line!

So the big question is: do you push these so hard on this forum because you like them, because you want people to buy them? And how are forum users supposed to know the difference?

There's absolutely NO way to tell one way or the other, because you're a DEALER, not simply a detector enthusiast!

Wrong! It’s a good friend of mine that offered a good deal to anyone (i like to help people). I do it to help him and RD enthusiasts. I don’t make a dime or care too; I make way too much money doing what I do to deal with 1 or 2 $450 Rd sales a month. If you would like to buy one at a discount (i still like you)i would be gladd to PM you his info because your not aloud to do that here... I would also be more than happy to e-mail you my corporate web sight to see what a really do for a living... would appreciate an apology. :roll:

I don’t have a problem with the videos its how they are presented and the pure number and time that went into trying to prove something that has a small chance of happening. Other than your personal research GOL in no way attempted to help 9500I owners understand what was going on. You have to admit the chances of locking out a real threat is small so why continuously make videos? Even Happy$$ was getting tired of them.

[jimbonzzz]

Wrong! It’s a good friend of mine that offered a good deal to anyone (i like to help people). I do it to help him and RD enthusiasts. I don’t make a dime or care too; I make way too much money doing what I do to deal with 1 or 2 $450 Rd sales a month. If you would like to buy one at a discount (i still like you)i would be gladd to PM you his info because your not aloud to do that here... I would also be more than happy to e-mail you my corprate web sight to see waht a realy do for a living... would appreciate an apology. :roll:

OK, I'm sorry. I guess it won't hurt you're bottom line, just your "friends" bottom line. You wouldn't want to hurt your 'friends' bottom line, that wouldn't be very "friendy" now would it? So I guess you have no interest at all in selling detectors to people, which is why you actively advertise them in your signature. I guess you better change it from "I have brand new 9500i's available" to "my 'friend' has brand new 9500i's available". Wouldn't want to mislead anyone, now would we? :wink: From reading that, it sounds like YOU have several in stock ready to ship :shock:

I don’t have a problem with the videos its how they are presented and the pure number and time that went into trying to prove something that has a small chance of happening. Other than your personal research GOL in no way attempted to help 9500I owners understand what was going on. You have to admit the chances of locking out a real threat is small so why continuously make videos? Even Happy$$ was getting tired of them.

We didn't set out to "make a bunch of videos to prove TrueLock 'doesn't work'". Let's recap here:

1st Video, March 2007 w/Gas Station

The 9500i did not alert when police radar was operated in the vicinity of previously locked out false alert location. That's what happened, period. It was either due to some "issue" with early 9500i's or because the police radar fell into the same block as the locked out false.


2nd Video, My bench test videos

The one that causes the most problems is the one someone piosted on YouTube with some negative comments on TrueLock. But I wasn't the one who posted it, and if you go back and look at the original thread I was trying to figure out how TrueLock worked. I did several more bench test videos that are all but ignored while everyone wants to focus on the one YouTuibe video and claim GOL is misleading people. This is not at all fair in my book!


3rd video, August 2007

By then we had a good idea about how TrueLock worked with the segments. So we made several videos showing what happened when different frequencies were locked out and police radar was opperated down the road. We did as many different scenarios as we had the time for, and I don't see any problem with what we did here.

Yes, the chances of locking something out IS small, and that's a fact.

My ONLY problem is that Esoterica is going around saying in multiple threads that GOL is "intentionally spreading misinformation", and nothing could be further from the truth.

[CJR238]

OK, I'm sorry. I guess it won't hurt you're bottom line, just your "friends" bottom line. You wouldn't want to hurt your 'friends' bottom line, that wouldn't be very "friendy" now would it? So I guess you have no interest at all in selling detectors to people, which is why you actively advertise them in your signature. I guess you better change it from "I have brand new 9500i's available" to "my 'friend' has brand new 9500i's available". Wouldn't want to mislead anyone, now would we? :wink:

I was worried it would be odd to post "my 'friend' has brand new 9500i's available" i figured it was easer just saying i did than explain in a PM. Good advice, probably would sound nicer i will change it. :wink:

We didn't set out to "make a bunch of videos to prove TrueLock 'doesn't work'". Let's recap here:

1st Video, March 2007 w/Gas Station

The 9500i did not alert when police radar was operated in the vicinity of previously locked out false alert location. That's what happened, period. It was either due to some "issue" with early 9500i's or because the police radar fell into the same block as the locked out false.

X2, but it wasn’t explained that It was either due to some "issue" with early 9500i's or because the police radar fell into the same block as the locked out false. The editing that was done on that video gave the feeling of deception and something severely wrong.

2nd Video, My bench test videos

The one that causes the most problems is the one someone piosted on YouTube with some negative comments on TrueLock. But I wasn't the one who posted it, and if you go back and look at the original thread I was trying to figure out how TrueLock worked. I did several more bench test videos that are all but ignored while everyone wants to focus on the one YouTuibe video and claim GOL is misleading people. This is not at all fair in my book!

X2, That YouTube video is no where near as informative as your newer ones.

3rd video, August 2007

By then we had a good idea about how TrueLock worked with the segments. So we made several videos showing what happened when different frequencies were locked out and police radar was opperated down the road. We did as many different scenarios as we had the time for, and I don't see any problem with what we did here.

These were much better videos, it even had one with TrueLock working. As i have stated before i think its the fact that the videos just show TrueLock failing and not explaining that its a small chance. Only 1 of the 4 videos showed TrueLock working so a new RD user would have to assume there is a 75% chance of locking out a real threat.

Yes, the chances of locking something out IS small, and that's a fact. .

Thank you, everyone needs to know the chance of locking out a real threat is small, all the focus on the videos give the perception that its huge.

[djrams80]

Yes, the chances of locking something out IS small, and that's a fact.

OK, now I'm happy! To quote Jules Winnfield, "*BEEP*, that's all you had to say!".

[CJR238]

Yes, the chances of locking something out IS small, and that's a fact.

OK, now I'm happy! To quote Jules Winnfield, "*BEEP*, that's all you had to say!".

X2, that’s what was missing, the pure amount and quality of videos gave the perception of the opposite. 8)

[Esoterica]

Your call, if you want to continue this I'll play along.

My bench test video three months later was performed on a 9500i that did not lock out the entire K-Band, and only locked out segments (and I still have that 9500i if there is any doubt!)

Where is this video? Links?

All I've seen of a 9500i in a "bench test" was the one on YouTube by "RadarScandal". Who is the person using that name with the video you say you have no way of removing? It would seem its a GOL member, the only 3 videos they have posted on YouTube are all 3 GOL video's.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RadarScandal

You sure are attempting to do a hell of a lot of side stepping and distracting in your replies here. The issue in question is why the GOL videos keep showing a focus on situations that actual 9500i owners never see. What could this possibly have to do with CJ selling 9500i's (even if he was) in another place? Then you imply his intentions are to help his friend, there's no relevance to the issue at hand at all in your repeated attempts to side step and distract.

Do you see us saying anything in this about RacerX's direct financial interest in seeing that people do not buy the 9500i. Look at the Cheetah product line, absolutely nothing there that any 9500i owner would need (wish they did, they have cool stuff), however their GPS mirror is in direct competition with the GPS capabilities of the 9500i. Seems rather clear 9500i sales are going to directly effect Cheetah profits. And, isn't RacerX a GOL member? If not he's certainly a very close friend of yours it would seem. I don't see any more conflict of interest taking place there than your attempt to discredit anything CJ has to say on this issue.

Now it would seem that we can scratch 2 of the video's off the list, the botched bench test and the test were apparently, according to RacerX who you said made the video then clarifies that early 9500i's blocked out the ENTIRE K band signal, not just a segment.

So it would seem we've established to be fact that the 9500i now does not block out the entire band. Despite current urban legends claiming this to be so based on the GOL video's, who seem to be the only ones making any such videos like this.

You're claims now if I'm reading you correctly are that the 9500i will not alert to a newly introduced signal in an area that has a previous lock out in it when that newly introduced signal may be police radar operating at or near the same K band frequency as the locked out K band frequency. This scenario would never even be possible if any of the signals were Ka band, this could only take place on K or X band.

The chances that this would actually ever happen seem rather remote, seems it would only be possible by someone intentional going out of their way to do this, go back to my comment...

You know though, in computer security, and I use this as an example only because its a similar situation which I am familiar with, its over whelmed with people trying to stand out in the crowd and report some great new security hole they have spent months uncovering. It carries a degree of heightened respect among your peers to be able to report a great finding and present it to the world as your own marvelous discovery.

I believe this holds true in other aspects where thinking minds gather to share thoughts, medical discoveries, astronomy, etc...

There is always though the individuals who come up with what they believe to be just extraordinary findings and rush to file their report before their peers only to have it completely picked apart and discredited. The reason that more often than not happens is because their findings will typically require such a specific set of unrealistic circumstances to occur that the reality of it being even worth mention becomes ridiculous.

They are only fooling the fools who do not know better when their peers find just cause to reject such magnificent findings, it discredits them grossly when they attempt to pursue such things and carry them to a lower understanding level of listeners just so they may be heard and find that praise they sought.

Certainly would seem that this is what has taken place here then, you have had to go deliberately well out of the bounds of likelihood in order to recreate an imagined scenario just in an effort to state your objective claim. Fairly the equivalent from a computer security perspective of a person claiming to have found a hole in Windows security that will allow them to log onto any Windows computer a person is using. Certainly proof of concept is in order, so what does he do, he stands behind a person logging into their computer and watches what they type in for their password. Well its certainly possible, is it however a likely enough or realistic security flaw in which he is reporting? We could certainly create a situation in where that claim would be possible, but its still not a creditable claim nor is it even worth mention.

I don't even see how or why there would be active police radar in an area that already has a source generating the same signal at or near the same frequency. This applied concept does not work well in any other aspects I'm more familiar with, what is the secret component in a police radar unit that seems to make them the exception to a very general rule, that being you do not operate two devices in the same proximity on or near the same frequency.

I know its completely impossible to even do in dual magnetron microwaves. If both magnetron's are operating at the same time they cancel each other out and you get nothing but about 18 Amps of electricity wasted while they are operating. They specifically with no margin for error have got to be phased in order to not both be firing at the same time.

A person needs to know absolutely nothing about electronics to see how 2 sources operating within proximity of each other at the same frequency behave. The proximity could be anywhere from 10 feet to 100 miles or more depending on how strong the source signal is. Everybody here has likely witnessed first hand the problems that occur when this takes place. What happens when you have 2 radio stations broadcasting at or near the same frequency within proximity of each other? What happens when 2 people within range of each other attempt to communicate at the same time on a CB radio?

The signals "walk on" each other and the received signal is total useless garbage. What is making police radar an exception to this commonly known phenomena when you have police radar and a "false" signal both being generated within proximity of each other at or near the same frequency. Seems to me like with anything else even a layman is familiar with there would certainly be some problems with this situation ever even being possible in the first place, or certainly even further drop the likelihood that the scenario in your claims depicts.

[jimbonzzz]

Your call, if you want to continue this I'll play along.

My bench test video three months later was performed on a 9500i that did not lock out the entire K-Band, and only locked out segments (and I still have that 9500i if there is any doubt!)

Where is this video? Links?

All I've seen of a 9500i in a "bench test" was the one on YouTube by "RadarScandal". Who is the person using that name with the video you say you have no way of removing? It would seem its a GOL member, the only 3 videos they have posted on YouTube are all 3 GOL video's.

http://www.youtube.com/user/RadarScandal

Here:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=25198

And Here:
http://www.radardetector.net/viewtopic.php?t=25754

Both links posted previously in my replies to you in this thread. (Looks like you're about as good at reading threads as you are at reading the 9500i's operator's manual.)

You sure are attempting to do a hell of a lot of side stepping and distracting in your replies here. The issue in question is why the GOL videos keep showing a focus on situations that actual 9500i owners never see. What could this possibly have to do with CJ selling 9500i's (even if he was) in another place? Then you imply his intentions are to help his friend, there's no relevance to the issue at hand at all in your repeated attempts to side step and distract.

Do you see us saying anything in this about RacerX's direct financial interest in seeing that people do not buy the 9500i. Look at the Cheetah product line, absolutely nothing there that any 9500i owner would need (wish they did, they have cool stuff), however their GPS mirror is in direct competition with the GPS capabilities of the 9500i. Seems rather clear 9500i sales are going to directly effect Cheetah profits. And, isn't RacerX a GOL member? If not he's certainly a very close friend of yours it would seem. I don't see any more conflict of interest taking place there than your attempt to discredit anything CJ has to say on this issue.

Who is doing the distracting and sidestepping now? The issue at hand here here is your false assertions that "GOL is spreading misinformation", not my replies to someone else in this thread!

As for RacerX's Cheetah products and the 9500i: Cheetah doesn't have a radar detector for the US, so there's no way any US cheetah product could serve as a replacement for the 9500i. And if you're making a big stretch and talking about the GPS Mirror, it has countless features that the 9500i doesn't. I really don't see how you can even make a comparison here, except fot the fact that both have GPS capabilities, but that is where the similarities end.

Now it would seem that we can scratch 2 of the video's off the list, the botched bench test and the test were apparently, according to RacerX who you said made the video then clarifies that early 9500i's blocked out the ENTIRE K band signal, not just a segment.

What about the third one you had a problem with, the one where you accused us of doing something "questionable" because the 9500i was alerting under 15 MPH? The one where you didn't realize that the 9500i only suppressed alerts under 15 MPH in AUTO mode?

That is the third one you had a problem with, and that takes care of ALL THREE VIDEOS that you originally posted that you had the biggest problem with, the ones you posted as your best evidence for your claim that "GOL is spreading misinformation"!!!

Your supporting evidence for your original argument has now been 100% refuted!

So it would seem we've established to be fact that the 9500i now does not block out the entire band. Despite current urban legends claiming this to be so based on the GOL video's, who seem to be the only ones making any such videos like this.

Sorry if that is what you think, but I don't know what you're using as a basis for this since all three of your original claims about GOL video have now been blown out of the water!

You're claims now if I'm reading you correctly are that the 9500i will not alert to a newly introduced signal in an area that has a previous lock out in it when that newly introduced signal may be police radar operating at or near the same K band frequency as the locked out K band frequency.

Those are NOT my "claims": that is 100% FACT, and well known on this forum.

Do you mean to tell me that you're arguing your point without even being aware of this? Unbelievable!

This scenario would never even be possible if any of the signals were Ka band, this could only take place on K or X band.

You think so? :roll:
I guess you must have finally read that part of the manual

The chances that this would actually ever happen seem rather remote, seems it would only be possible by someone intentional going out of their way to do this, go back to my comment...

You're right, it would be rather remote.
But -could- it happen? DEFINITELY.

You know though, in computer security, and I use this as an example only because its a similar situation which I am familiar with, its over whelmed with people trying to stand out in the crowd and report some great new security hole they have spent months uncovering. It carries a degree of heightened respect among your peers to be able to report a great finding and present it to the world as your own marvelous discovery.

I believe this holds true in other aspects where thinking minds gather to share thoughts, medical discoveries, astronomy, etc...

There is always though the individuals who come up with what they believe to be just extraordinary findings and rush to file their report before their peers only to have it completely picked apart and discredited. The reason that more often than not happens is because their findings will typically require such a specific set of unrealistic circumstances to occur that the reality of it being even worth mention becomes ridiculous.

They are only fooling the fools who do not know better when their peers find just cause to reject such magnificent findings, it discredits them grossly when they attempt to pursue such things and carry them to a lower understanding level of listeners just so they may be heard and find that praise they sought.

Certainly would seem that this is what has taken place here then, you have had to go deliberately well out of the bounds of likelihood in order to recreate an imagined scenario just in an effort to state your objective claim.

Fairly the equivalent from a computer security perspective of a person claiming to have found a hole in Windows security that will allow them to log onto any Windows computer a person is using. Certainly proof of concept is in order, so what does he do, he stands behind a person logging into their computer and watches what they type in for their password. Well its certainly possible, is it however a likely enough or realistic security flaw in which he is reporting? We could certainly create a situation in where that claim would be possible, but its still not a creditable claim nor is it even worth mention.

Which video are you talking about now???

You scratched TWO of the original THREE videos you posted off your list:

- the first because of a potential "issue" with early 9500i's
- the second was the "botched bench test"

The third video you mentioned was the one where you accused us of doing something "questionable" because the 9500i was alerting under 15 MPH. This was clearly your fault for not understanding the 9500i's features!

Your original argument no longer has any supporting evidence.

If you want to continue to make this claim, then you'll have to dig up some new evidence to support it. But if you do, I'm going to question why you didn't consider them problematic enough to post in the first place, and I would DEFINITELY have to question your motives for bringing them up after all your other evidence has been refuted.

I guess you'll have to find somethnig new to blame GOL for now

I don't even see how or why there would be active police radar in an area that already has a source generating the same signal at or near the same frequency. This applied concept does not work well in any other aspects I'm more familiar with, what is the secret component in a police radar unit that seems to make them the exception to a very general rule, that being you do not operate two devices in the same proximity on or near the same frequency.

I know its completely impossible to even do in dual magnetron microwaves. If both magnetron's are operating at the same time they cancel each other out and you get nothing but about 18 Amps of electricity wasted while they are operating. They specifically with no margin for error have got to be phased in order to not both be firing at the same time.

As a matter of fact, it's a known tactic for police operate in areas where there are false alerts, or speed display signs. Hence the reason for the Expert Meter on the Escorts and the Bogey Counter on the V1.

Heck, just take a look the the 9500i advertisement image from Escort's site that I've posted in this thread more than once! If police couldn't operate in an area of a known false, then Escort could get away with locking out the entire K-Band (which they currently do not) instead of 30 Mhz segments.

Because of the doppler shift, the police radar guns are looking for the reflected signal to be a number of Hz or KHz off of the transmitted signal. Anything outside this range is basically ignored.

For K-Band, the highest practical doppler shift would be around 14 KHz, the doppler shift for K-Band at 199 MPH, so for a motion sensor to interfere with the police radar, it would have to be within 14 KHz of the police radar (to be more exact, about 14334 Hz). Most of the time, even two of the same model of radar unit are different in frequency by many MHz, since Gunn oscillators just aren't that stable, hence the +/- 100 MHz bandpass for K-Band. Even trying to purposely tune a motion sensor to be this close to the radar would probably be nearly impossible.

For example, if the officer had a K-Band radar unit at exactly 24.150000000 GHz, in order to interfere with the police radar (stationary), the motion sensor would have to be at 24.150014334 GHz or closer. If you divide the 200 MHz wide K-Band by the 14334 Hz (200000000 / 14334) the chances are 1 in 13953 that a K-Band motion sensor would interfere with police radar. So, EXTREMELY unlikely to occur.

A person needs to know absolutely nothing about electronics to see how 2 sources operating within proximity of each other at the same frequency behave. The proximity could be anywhere from 10 feet to 100 miles or more depending on how strong the source signal is. Everybody here has likely witnessed first hand the problems that occur when this takes place. What happens when you have 2 radio stations broadcasting at or near the same frequency within proximity of each other? What happens when 2 people within range of each other attempt to communicate at the same time on a CB radio?

The signals "walk on" each other and the received signal is total useless garbage. What is making police radar an exception to this commonly known phenomena when you have police radar and a "false" signal both being generated within proximity of each other at or near the same frequency. Seems to me like with anything else even a layman is familiar with there would certainly be some problems with this situation ever even being possible in the first place, or certainly even further drop the likelihood that the scenario in your claims depicts.

Sorry but that's just not the case with doppler radar, per the above Doppler radar is quite different from CB radio communications. In this case, it DOES take an understanding of electronics and how doppler radar operates.

Stick around for a while, you just might learn something here :wink:

[Esoterica]

Here. while I'm reading your reply above I've added more to further clarify how unlikely and unrealistic your claims are in this thread...

http://www.radardetector.net/viewtop...=371257#371257

Looks like you were writing this at the same time I was writing that.